Pages

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

The Late Show with David Letterman. I have never watched this show with any regularity, and now I doubt I ever will. In his "Top 10" list last night, the subject was Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man I had blogged about earlier. They called it "Top Ten Messages Left On The Pregnant Man's Answering Machine."

You know what number one was?"Michael Jackson here -- just wanted to reach out to another androgynous freak show."No joke.

I think Beatie's story is great. He and his wife wanted a child, and she couldn't conceive. Modern technology will be helping them have a family. We should be celebrating the fact that Beatie and his wife are able to do something that will make them happy because they are human beings who deserve that. Instead, people with high visibility, like Letterman, choose to throw around hateful, intolerant words. It's not funny. I can't believe it.

I will be, so I hope like-minded individuals will also tell CBS that Letterman's "Top 10" was uncalled for.

68 comments:

Coming on the heels of Jay Leno's homophobic comments regarding an early Ryan Phillipe role where he played a gay teen, this hasn't been a very good week for late-night talk show hosts tossing out hateful sayings.

You'd think that in this day and age that this wouldn't be such an easy target for ridicule, and yet here we are. Really piss poor on Letterman's part.

Well, either way, Letterman isn't funny, never has been, and this further solidifies the fact that transgender and gays aren't as openly welcome in our society as people think.

And it's nitpicking in terms of saying whether or not the man is actually a man. At this point, it's irrelevant because he's married to a woman and in a happy marriage and now they're going to have kids.

Hypothetical: if a woman was a woman, but had a penis-making her a hermaphrodite-would she still be a woman? Sure. And if we have the science to recreate this genetic abnormality and it's making people happy, then why not?

Yes, Anonymous, "we people," do complain because being silent about societal problems is not a way to fix them. And I have to say, I think that calling someone who is doing something as non-controversial as starting a family (without the gender considerations) a "freak show" is a problem that needs to be changed.

Silence only allows these things to continue, and my conscience will not allow me to be silent.

I do believe that the first amendment stops applying when someone's right to safety is infringed upon. And using terms like "freak show" are only fuel for the fire of trans-hatred and trans-violence (like this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/02/10/2008-02-10_cops_excon_slays_bronx_transsexual_hooke.html

I'm sorry that I don't buy into the idea that people should be allowed to use hurtful language like that on the television. There's no way you can call someone a "freak show" in a nice way.

I think saying that his "rigt to safety is infringed upon" is stretching that just a bit much... it's not like anyone is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre filled with blind kids in wheelchairs... Letterman is simply stating his opinion, which he is constitutionally entitled to. He is not calling a meeting of torch barring followers to go to the man's house and burn it to the ground - since his comment is legally harmless and in no way a call for violent action, it is not infringing on the man's right to safety...

I disagree with you, All American Girl, in that I believe that words, even without direct calls for action, can greatly inspire action. Using the term "freak show" in reference to a transsexual perpetuates the idea that transpeople are somehow less-than-human. And it is much easier for people to inflict violence upon those whom they view as being less-than-human. So, because Letterman's words help reinforce this wrong idea that transsexuals are not human, he does indeed increase the likelihood that violence will continue to be inflicted upon them.

I still don't understand how he increases the likelihood of violence being inflicted - how many times have you heard someone that works at the circus refered to as a "freak show" and how many times have you heard that someone in the circus who was deemed a "freak show" was a victim of a violent crime?

I agree with All American Girl. Everybody has their right to say what they want when they want. If Letterman was just a guy walking down the street and he said this no one would know except who he was talking to, but because he has a TV show, people freak out about it. So, he called someone a freak show, you cannot honestly tell me that you haven't said something hurtful to someone at a point and time in your life...

"4. freak show1. a friend that is always putting on freaky displays of a great variety2. a highly entertaining risque individual.examples:"you were dancing on the bar last night freak show""- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=freak+show

would this elicit violence against the friend dancing on the bar? calling someone a freak show does not cause people to run amuck, hunt them down, and club them to death.

ps. in addition to freedom of speech, there's also another thing called freedom of the press.

a person who appears to be a man, but still possesses a uterus and has the ability to give birth does qualify as a bizarre occasion, does it not? last time I checked, women were still the ones that had to go thru 9 months of fun and joy before pushing out a 7 pound baby... but when a man is pregnant, that's just a little bit out of the ordinary - thus qualifying it as a freak show.

and if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I believe it is safe to call it a duck.

Letterman, as a public figure, does not have a responsibility to censor himself. If he wants to state his opinion, legally he can, and he shall. People are free to speak their minds without having to worry that the king will throw them in jail - that's the beauty of America.

"Dehumanizing occasion", American Girl. That's all I have to say on that for now.

"Letterman, as a public figure, does not have a responsibility to censor himself."

I think you are wrong here. Public figures are very influential in American life, and therefore should be responsible and make sure that they don't promote ideas that are harmful, such as transsexuals being less that human. (Please see "dehumanizing occasion.")

He is not "promoting his ideas" he is stating his opinion. The two are very different things. The Trump-O'Donnell battle not too long ago was very public, and both stated their opinions on the other - they did not need to censor their opinions. Letterman, since he is stating his opinion, should not need to censor himself. I don't know how many times I can say it: he is in no way calling for an act of violence! He is not standing out on street corners handing out flyers saying "Kill the Pregnant Man! Gather at (insert location) at (insert time) if you hate transsexuals!" As long as he is not calling people to rally for a common goal of taking the right to life away from someone else, legally he has done nothing wrong.

There are some that may find your opinion offensive. What is deemed "offensive" is in the eye of the beholder, the same with "beauty" and other such ideologies. If everyone were to go around trying to not offend anyone, no one would say anything. Chances are for everything someone else says, there is someone out there that is offended by it.

All American Girl: I wish someone could buy you a clue. :/ You seem to know nothing about how bigotry and violence actually come about. It's a process, and it starts with hateful ideas. Words. They're spread and eventually the idea snowballs until real people get killed.

That is why it's morally wrong and irresponsible for Letterman to say what he did. He is free to, yes. Hooray, Bill of Rights! But that doesn't mean he should. Not by half.

Anon: Thank you for your offer to buy me a clue, but I'm pretty sure I understand the concepts of bigotry and violence and how they occur. You, however, do not seem to understand that this is not a hateful idea. This is a comment based on opinion, which you yourself agreed that Letterman is intitled to. It was not a call to violence, and I doubt that it will be taken as one - there is no one that has made a follow-up supporting Letterman's idea. Gaysocialites.com seem to be just as offended as you, but they are not out creating violence against themeslves. This comment is being blown out of proportion, and you're looking for problems where there aren't any.

American Girl, I am sorry if I happen to see a major problem with people seeming to be unable to refer to transpeople as that - people. There was no need to call Thomas a freak show, and the fact that Letterman and his writers allowed that to be broadcast was irresponsible.

You may think it's harmless, but I don't think so. Words can hurt people. It's a fact.

All i know is that if I had a baby inside of me, all my friends would call me a freakshow, and rightly so. No matter how you twist it, this man/woman is a freakshow. Amelia, walk down the sidewalk at Knox and ask 10 random people if they thing a man having a baby is weird. I am willing to bet that al least 9 of them will say yes. Oh, and Letterman can say whatever he wants- this is AMERICA! This bog makes me want to play the song Get Over It by the Eagles.

I agree with you on one thing, All American Girl and anonymous, that we do live in a politically correct world, and a lot of times, people are overly sensitive and get offended too quickly.

HOWEVER, transpeople are the most discriminated against group in America. They are still killed for simply walking down the street. They are denied jobs, expelled from schools, and experience violence because they are simply trying to live their lives. They are denied their basic human rights because people view them as less than human.

Letterman contributed to that dehumanization when he called Thomas a "freakshow." Yes, he can say whatever he wants, this is America (the land of the free, as long as you are white, straight, capitalist, male, and wealthy), but he is a public figure, and he should have known the statement could have harmful effects.

Will anybody be killed as a direct result of the statement? Probably not. But, it is another contribution to the dehumanization of transpeople.

If I were to ask someone on the street if they thought a person who had the general outwardly displayed physical characteristics, but also possessed the necessary internal organs to concieve, carry, and birth a child, was in itself a strange thing, I'm certain they'd say yes, because it's really not a particularly common thing in our world. Yes, people with such biological rarities certainly do exist in substantial number, but it's an uncommon thing that would certainly be strange for most people to see. Of course, we react with fear to things we're unfamiliar with, and many people choose to respond to fear with humor.

Anonymous, the fact that you choose not to reveal your name, and that you say things like "...posting out of your backside" is making me very cautious when it comes to your comments. Please be careful in the future, or I will start deleting. Your question could have been posed in a much less rude manner.

I also like the idea of Letterman fearing Thomas Beatie. I might be starting something here when I say this, but I think it might have some validity. Why would Letterman fear Beatie? Because Letterman is a white male who has been very successful in a society whose structure supports (and even calls for?) the subordination and sometimes oppression of people (such as women, transpeople, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers, etc.).

Because Letterman has been successful in such a society, he wouldn't want someone like Thomas Beatie to go public and try to change the way society views people of different genders. He is afraid, and so he reacted by making an unnecessary joke.

It's a definite possibility in my view, although I do not contend to know all the facts.

Since it is true that Letterman is the successful man you claim him to be, what would possibly cause him to fear Beatie? Beatie is no true threat to Letterman. You're claiming there's a fire where there is none.

A little off topic, but I think it's funny how the ONLY example anyone ever uses for when free speech does not apply is the "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater one. That sort of signals to me that perhaps a lot of people just don't know very well when free speech does not apply?

None of the major news hosts, like O'Reilly, Olbermann, Imus, or pretty much anyone who is on the major "News" networks are really journalists. They're all political pundits, and I don't know why we expect them to be 'neutral' or 'unbiased'. That's not their job. When someone brings up O'Reilly as an example of a conservative journalist, or Olbermann as a liberal journalist, they display a profound misunderstanding of the difference between journalism and punditry.

Thanks for the link, Michael, but it fails to prove anything. My analogy was correct because in Nazi Germany people's rights were taken away from them... but in order to please you, I suppose I can change my former statement, based on the suggestion of straight white male, because who am I kidding, society is all about pleasing the male:

thank you for your support swm... and also for posting under my name....please refrain from doing so in the future...

back to the topic at hand, Letterman's comment was repeated tonight on fox news, as someone else already pointed out, by goldberg, and i haven't heard anyone complaining that his statement that Beatie was a "freak show," a comment which he made not once - but twice, is a call to arms against transsexuals.

All American Girl and Straight White Male and all you other literal constructionists:

When talking about oppression, and bigotry, and hatred of the transgender and transsexual community, a lot of the points, like Beatie being a threat to Letterman, and contributing to the enviorment of sexism and hatred, we are doing a little thing called THINKING ABSTRACTLY. Of course Beatie is not siting outside Letterman's studio with a gun about to shoot him. And yes, Letterman did not give a specific call-to-arms against the trans community. However, his comment has contributed to a cultural attitude that is very unaccepting of the trans community (as so artfully displayed by many of the comments here) which fosters violence.

Also, and this is specifically to All American Girl. You obviously know nothing about free speech. Speech is not 100% free, ESPECIAlLY on broadcasting. Obscenities, profanities, and hate speech are not allowed on Television, believe it or not, so please stop using the free speech argument as a justification for his language. Yes, it "freak show" is not an obscenity, but the first ammendment rights are not completely extanded to broadcasting. At all. Of course, he will not get fined for it, but again, just becuase it is technically legal does not make it right or good. And if he, or you, for that matter, actually had an intellectual opinion on the matter, instead of just using school yard insults for a cheap laugh, I might be more inclined to respect it as opinion, instead of just immaturity fueled by threated members of the patriarch.

Finally, it is a gross assumption that everyone is just sitting around in complaining. First of all, setting up discourse about a matter and bringing awareness to it is the first step in creating change. Secondly, you do not know ANY of us personally and have no idea what we do to foster change in the real world.

I don't think anyone, no matter how controversial/unorthodox they may be, deserves to be blatantly insulted on national television. It's infantile and cruel, and it makes people like Letterman look equally bigoted and immature.

But, I also have to wonder why this family would go to such extremes. Certainly surrogates and other such options exist. Did he really want the mood swings, the swollen ankles, and the pickle-and-ice-cream cravings? Laughably, yes, that is the part that confuses me the most.